Nuramin v The King

• 1. Criminal Law
  2. › Appeal
  3. › Sentence
  4. › Sexual offences against children
  5. › Sexual penetration of child under 12
  6. › Supply of drug of dependence to a child
  7. › Co-offenders sentenced identically on individual charges with different cumulation
  8. › Whether two-stage sentencing error
  9. › Whether mitigating factors must be reflected in individual sentences as part of instinctive synthesis
  10. › Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5(2G), 5A, 5B, 6D, 6E, 6F, 11A
  11. › Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 49A(1), 49D(1)
• 1. Criminal Law
  2. › Appeal
  3. › Sentence
  4. › Parity principle
  5. › Co-offenders with different mitigating circumstances
  6. › Time in immigration detention
  7. › Intellectual disability
  8. › Whether insufficient weight given to distinguishing mitigating factors
  9. › Whether sentence insufficiently disparate from co-offenders
• 1. Criminal Law
  2. › Sentencing
  3. › Mitigating factors
  4. › Intellectual disability
  5. › Cognitive functioning equivalent to mild intellectual disability
  6. › Whether causal nexus between disability and offending required for mitigation
  7. › Whether lack of causal link eliminates cognitive deficits as relevant to moral culpability and deterrence
  8. › Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
• 1. Criminal Law
  2. › Sentencing
  3. › Mitigating factors
  4. › Time in immigration detention
  5. › Credit for pre-sentence deprivation of liberty
  6. › Broad and practical approach
  7. › Whether immigration detention equivalent to pre-sentence detention on remand
  8. › Sahhitanandan v The Queen [2019] VSCA 115

Quick Take